Forum:Second Chamber
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ The Second Chamber is only opened (for vote) to Members of the Congress, elected in the Federal Elections. While issues and motions can be discussed in the Forum:First Chamber, there are voted in here. When a proposal isn't accepted, it can go back to the First Chamber for some adjustments. Older proposals Lowering the power of the King/PM This is the first part of a bigger reform plan. This part of the plan is to be treated as one proposal. The goal of this part is to give more power to the Congress and to neutralize the positions of King and PM. Separation of Powers Currently the Lovian Constitution states in article 1.A.3. that: :Lovia shall be organized based on the principle of the separation and balance of powers - legislative, executive, and judicial - within the framework of constitutional democracy. I would like to make this more concrete by adding the following sentence: :Therefore no person is entitled to combine a top function in two or three branches of government; thus, the ruling monarch, the Prime Minister and the Supreme Court Judge shall be no less than three different persons. Mid-term and Crisis Elections One of the fields were the King and PM have too much power (compared to Congress, were the real sovereignty lies) are the organization of 'special elections'. The mid-term elections for example can only be organized on initiative of the PM. And there are no regulations at all about what to do when most of Congress is inactive. Therefore I suggest the following: * Changing Art.8.1.4: Mid-term elections can be organized if proposed in Congress and approved by a Congressial majority. (instead of "by the PM"). * Adding an Art.8.1.5: New federal elections have to be held when more than half of the Members of the Congress are inactive; either self-declared or if they have not edited for over a month (31 days); or when the Prime Minister steps down. This would also require a description of when the PM has to step down. I will handle that in the following part of this proposal. Federal Secretaries and Impeachment To make Congress even stronger against the King and PM, we have to build in an impeachment procedure that allows Congress to dismiss the entire government: * Adding an Art.8.2.3.1: When Congress has lost its trust in the incumbent government, it can vote a motion of distrust. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority (50%), both government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held. * Adding an Art.8.2.3.2: When the Prime Minister and his government resign, Congress is dissolved and new federal elections are to be held. Furthermore, Congress should be able to question Federal Secretaries and other executives of the government. Also, the power of the King and PM in the composition of the government is too big. Therefore I would make these two changes: * Rewriting Art.8.2.1: The monarch and PM will chose which MOTC will become Secretaries of a certain Department. Their proposal needs to be accepted by a normal majority in Congress. * Rewriting Art.8.2.2: ''Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities. When they have lost their trust in the questioned person, they can vote a motion of distrust against him/her. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority (50%), he/she has to resign and a replacement has to be proposed by the PM and approved by Congress. Vote All Members of the Congress are entitled to vote for or against this proposal cluster. 09:10, February 28, 2010 (UTC) :'Please vote: Pierius, Edward and Andy!' 17:25, March 5, 2010 (UTC) PRO * 09:12, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:13, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * Pierlot McCrooke 09:21, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * 09:23, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * Harold Freeman 14:30, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * -- 17:01, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * --Lars Washington 17:33, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * 13:28, March 2, 2010 (UTC) * -- Dr. Magnus 20:50, March 5, 2010 (UTC) * Edward Hannis 23:23, March 5, 2010 (UTC) * 07:24, March 6, 2010 (UTC) * ... CONTRA * --Bucurestean 10:09, February 28, 2010 (UTC) ( : Point 8.2.1) *: Why are you against that? i think it's a good democratization. 12:04, February 28, 2010 (UTC) *:: I don't like the point which says that the King may negotiate who should come in the government and who not. --Bucurestean 12:14, February 28, 2010 (UTC) *::: but isn't it the same right now? 12:17, February 28, 2010 (UTC) *:::: It is, but why should I vote for if I am against it? --Bucurestean 12:19, February 28, 2010 (UTC) *::::: but this proposal is about changing other things. the thing you're voting against, is in fact not a change, I think. Aren't you in favor of the proposed changes? then you still can propose a bill to change the portion LD wants to change. 12:24, February 28, 2010 (UTC) *:::::: Of course there are a couple of points on which I agree but I can't confirm this one, by supporting it if I want to come in the near future with a proposal to change it? In my eyes that would be hypocrite. --Bucurestean 12:28, February 28, 2010 (UTC) *::::::: sometimes the choice is between hypocrite though hard-working or straight forward and non-constructive. 12:29, February 28, 2010 (UTC) *:::::::: I just don't see this system work. Are we all going to make compromises like these because the proposer wants to? Why don't we make loose proposals? Some even include 4 totally different subjects! --Bucurestean 12:32, February 28, 2010 (UTC) *::::::::: perhaps we should consider that indeed. 12:33, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * ... ABSTENTION * ... Abolishing the undemocratic local regulations This is the second plan of above mentioned reform plan. This part is also to be treated as a whole and aims at introducing more transparency and democracy in legal regulations. Because legal regulations made on local levels (states, towns, etc.) are undemocratic, we should abolish them. Only Congress should be able to declare a law. This would imply the following changes to the Constitution: * Art. 4.2/4.3/4.4 : removing the regulations concerning judicial structures on these levels; leaving only Congress in power to declare a law. * Deleting Article 5, that regulates the devision of judicial power between national (Congress) and local level(s). * Art. 6.1: replacing 'Federal or State Law' by just 'Federal Law'. * Art. 6.3: removing the regulations concerning the creation of a State Law. Furthermore, I would like to make it possible for anyone to propose a law. Currently, only MOTC can do so. This would require the following changes: * Art. 6.2.1: ''One or more Members of the Congress write a motion --> Anyone can write a motion and propose it in Congress (First Chamber) * Art. 7.3.1: One or more Members of the Congress write an amendment --> Anyone can write an amendment and propose it in Congress (First Chamber) Also, the judicial institutions on state level should be abolished. There are - luckily - not too many trials in Lovia and Supreme Court can manage them all. Therefor I would like to suggest that we also alter the following: * Art. 9.1: All judicial cases are to be handled by the Supreme Court (instead of the endless list of what they can do and what is for State Court). * The deletion of Article 10, which names the fields of authority for the State Courts. Vote All Members of the Congress are entitled to vote for or against this proposal cluster. 09:10, February 28, 2010 (UTC) :Please vote: Andy, Arthur and Lars! 17:29, March 5, 2010 (UTC) PRO * 09:13, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * , under the condition a new function for the states can be found later on Harold Freeman 14:32, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * Edward Hannis 17:46, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * 13:28, March 2, 2010 (UTC) **Are you aware that states will become useless from this act? Pierlot McCrooke 13:33, March 2, 2010 (UTC) *** She's a fast reader* ;) --Bucurestean 13:35, March 2, 2010 (UTC) **** Unlike in other parties, we the Progressives do discuss things first with each other =) So I was rather familiar with this prop. 13:37, March 2, 2010 (UTC) * -- 19:51, March 5, 2010 (UTC) (I am not entirely convinced, mostly because I actually support a bicameral system in which one chamber is based on the state elections. Still, I do support the basic idea behind this proposal, and I sure like it more than a simple "No, not good enough" kind of vote.) * ... CONTRA * --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:14, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * States wuld become useless of it Pierlot McCrooke 09:19, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * --Bucurestean 10:17, February 28, 2010 (UTC) ( ) * --Dr. Magnus 12:30, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * ... ABSTENTION * I think we can work out a better proposal. I invite all members, and especially those who oppose this proposal, to get their pens out and write. 15:40, February 28, 2010 (UTC) *: I will give it a think! -- 19:48, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * , will these changes lead eventually to a dictatorship without any democratic reasoning ? --Lars Washington 07:13, March 6, 2010 (UTC) * i'm in doubt. 07:29, March 6, 2010 (UTC) * ... Changes in the citizenship regulations (new version) This is the final part of the reform plan and is rather small. I believe its intention is clear. Article 3 – The Lovian citizenship # Every inhabitant of Lovia has the right to become a Lovian citizen. ## An inhabitant of Lovia is every person who has a domicile (permanent residence) within Lovia. ## There are requirements to become a Lovian citizen: ### He or she must reside in Lovia. ### He or she must have made at least 50 edits. #### Acts of vandalism or related edits are not to be included in this count. ### He or she must truthfully provide the following personal information: #### His or her official name that consists of at least one given name and a surname. #### His or her biological sex. #### His or her domicile (permanent residence); this being a full adress of a residence in a Lovian city or town. # The rights of a citizen are described in Article 2. # One's citizenship may be taken away as a punishment in a trial. Vote All Members of the Congress are entitled to vote for or against this proposal cluster. 09:10, February 28, 2010 (UTC) PRO * 09:13, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:14, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * Pierlot McCrooke 09:22, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * 09:22, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * 11:38, February 28, 2010 (UTC) (good) * -- Dr. Magnus 12:27, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * a step in the good direction Harold Freeman 14:33, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * -- 17:03, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * --Lars Washington 17:32, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * Edward Hannis 18:14, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * --Bucurestean 21:39, March 1, 2010 (UTC) * 13:29, March 2, 2010 (UTC) CONTRA ABSTENTION * --Bucurestean 10:20, February 28, 2010 (UTC) ( : Point 2.2) Come on Alyssa, you're the last to vote on this one . An unanimous majority would be great! 07:18, March 2, 2010 (UTC) : by an absolute and unanimous majority! 17:30, March 5, 2010 (UTC) Amendment bill: Article 1B I wish to rewrite the Constitutional Article 1B (about the monarchy). Current state Article 1 B - Lovia is a monarchy, ruled by a king or queen. # The ruling monarch is the person who inherited the throne. This can be the king or the queen. # The partner of the ruling monarch is the one who married the person who inherited the throne and # A new king or queen: ## The monarch of Lovia is the first-born child of the previous ruling monarch. ## The person the most related to the former king will become ruling monarch. ##* If the former monarch didn’t have any children. ##* If the first-born child refuses to become king or queen. # The heir to the throne has to sign the constitution before his or her inauguration. # The king or queen and his or her partner are automatically Members of the Congress. # The king and queen have the right to become a federal secretary and/or a member of one or more state governments and/or a member of a city or town government. # The ruling monarch receives means by the Department of Finance to compensate his or her expenses. The Secretary of Finance has the right to turn down means if the expenses are not of any general use or if the monarch has spent too much on unnecessary items. # The ruling monarch can also: #* Grant a civilian an extra living as a gift. #* Grant a company or store the right to be an official Royal Warrant. # Every member of the Royal family is equal to normal citizens. Proposed state Article 1 B - Lovia is a monarchy, ruled by the ruling monarch. # The ruling monarch is the person who legally inherited the throne from the previous ruling monarch. He or she is thus a descendant of the first Lovian monarch, King Arthur I of Lovia (Arthur Noble). ## The ruling monarch can be either male (the King) or female (the Queen). # The partner of the ruling monarch is the person who legally married the ruling monarch. She is a member of the royal family, but does not enjoy privileges over the citizens of Lovia. # The person who legally inherits the Lovian throne, after the previous ruling monarch has either deceased or abdicated, is the person who is most directly related in terms of kinship to the previous ruling monarch. # The heir to the throne will sign the Constitution upon his coronation. # The ruling monarch is Member of the Congress by Right, meaning he is automatically granted a seat in the Lovian Congress. ## The ruling monarch is thus not permitted to participate in elections to Congress. # The ruling monarch has the right to demand financial support from the Department of Finances, in which case the Secretary of Finance can decide to grant the ruling monarch an amount of money, in agreement with Congress. # With the exception of the ruling monarch in function, no member of the royal family is granted extra-legal privileges. Each member of the royal family, with the exception of the ruling monarch in function, is a regular citizen as determined by the Constitution. Changes This is what I did: # I formalized the article's word use and brought some uniformity to the use of terms as "ruling monarch" and "king or queen". # I simplified the paragraph about inheriting the throne. # The queen formally was an automatic MOTC as well (!). This I deleted. # I deleted the sentence that the king and queen could become secretary and such: that sentence was not needed. As long as there is no sentence saying they cannot do so, they can. # I deleted the sentence about the king getting money from the Finance Department. Instead, I added a sentence saying the king could ask for money, and that the Congress would have to agree with what the Finance Secretary decided to do with it. # I deleted the king's right to: #* Give extra residences to some citizens (very undemocratic) #* Do Royal Warrants (silly system) # I reformed the last sentence about the other members of the royal family. Qua content, nothing changes here. Vote All Members of the Congress are entitled to vote for or against this proposal cluster. 09:10, February 28, 2010 (UTC) PRO * -- Dr. Magnus 09:13, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * 09:14, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:14, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * Pierlot McCrooke 09:20, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * 09:22, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * 12:02, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * Harold Freeman 14:34, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * --Lars Washington 17:31, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * 17:31, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * Edward Hannis 17:45, February 28, 2010 (UTC) * 13:30, March 2, 2010 (UTC) CONTRA * --Bucurestean 10:26, February 28, 2010 (UTC) ( : Point 5) *: Glad to see you back. But uh... gone crazy? Why against point 5? :s 11:34, February 28, 2010 (UTC)] *:: I am against your automatic seat in Congress. Gone crazy? Well thanks, just read LQ. --Bucurestean 12:11, February 28, 2010 (UTC) *:::I hope this wont be a political crisis Pierlot McCrooke 12:13, February 28, 2010 (UTC) *::::Of course it won't, McCrooke. If a majority agrees, the law will pass. Period. Dr. Magnus 12:15, February 28, 2010 (UTC) *::::: I don't see why this would result in a political crisis :P --Bucurestean 12:20, February 28, 2010 (UTC) by an absolute 91.67% majority in Congress! 17:43, March 5, 2010 (UTC) Voting options amendment bill Something that never went to the First Chamber. Pierlot McCrooke 18:42, March 5, 2010 (UTC) Proposal Constitution, Article 6.2.4: :Every Member of the Congress can vote (pro, contra or abstention). Should be: :Every Member of the Congress can vote (pro, contra, '''neutral', back to first chamber, merge proposal with another or abstention).'' I think that is good. Pierlot McCrooke 18:42, March 5, 2010 (UTC) Voting Proposed is an amendment to the Constitution. A 75% majority is required. 18:50, March 5, 2010 (UTC) Pro * --Pierlot McCrooke 19:02, March 5, 2010 (UTC) We shoud REALLY get these voting options * ... Contra * No use in these extra options. When a proposal isn't ready to go into law (because it should be changed, or is just a bad proposal), then we just vote against it. If it isn't, we vote pro. Easy as pie, I think. By the way: we can't demand that an article goes back to the First Chamber: that is something only the proposer (or anybody else who wants to take over the issue) can do. You mean well Pierlot, but all these options are there already - in some way. 18:55, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *:We should includ that as voting option Pierlot McCrooke 19:00, March 5, 2010 (UTC) * -- 19:53, March 5, 2010 (UTC) (I disagree with the further complication of the law.) *: The current 'back to first chamber-system' is undemocratic. THat is why i pproposed that. Pierlot McCrooke 19:57, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *::Undemocratic? In what way, my friend? -- 19:57, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *:::Currently anyone who is a MOTC may put a proposal back to first chamber without voting. With this proposal this would have to be voted. Pierlot McCrooke 20:00, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *::::Is that undemocratic? -- 20:05, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *:::::My proposal will fix that undemocratic situation. By adding a back to first chamber '' voting option. The voting option: Pierlot McCrooke 20:08, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *::::::Yes, yes, thát I understand. But why is it an "undemocratic situation"? -- 20:10, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *:::::::Because currently the back to first chamber-going is not voted Pierlot McCrooke 20:11, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *::::::::Why should that be voted? No country in the world does that... -- 20:19, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *:::::::::I meant, that a proposal can be~by anyone put back for adjustments for First chamber without that putting back voted. A proposal going back should only happen i think when much MOTC have voted for the Back to First Chamber-option. Hope you understand me now Pierlot McCrooke 20:25, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *::::::::::Yes, yes, I do understand. But is that a bad thing? I see your point, my dear Pierlot, but I find no problem in a senator having the chance to decide for himself if he still thinks his proposal is viable enough to get it back to the First Chamber, or not. Perhaps this is not all about democracy, but about personal rights as well. -- 20:27, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *:::::::::::In some cases (like this), Democracy goes for Pierlot McCrooke 20:31, March 5, 2010 (UTC) * -- Dr. Magnus 20:46, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *: Do not forget to vote on the first issue as well, Mr. Donia . -- 20:48, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *::Donia, did you already '''READ' the proposal? You seem randon to me Donia Pierlot McCrooke 20:54, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *:::Let's just say I don't believe it to be... necessary, so to speak... The voting system is fine as it is. I have no problem with it whatsoever. No offense. Dr. Magnus 20:57, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *::::I believe the current system is good, but it needs some adjustments. For example that anyone may move a proposal back to First Chamber without congress voting that. That is undeMocratic. That is why I creating the voting option . So Congress gets democraticaller Pierlot McCrooke 21:02, March 5, 2010 (UTC) *::Well, McCrooke, I must say: you have quite a talent of saying things very clearly! In this last point agree. Dr. Magnus 21:04, March 5, 2010 (UTC) * -- pierlot, WLP stands for simplification, not complication. 07:26, March 6, 2010 (UTC) * --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:44, March 6, 2010 (UTC) *:andy it may be complication, but the current situation on placing proposals back to First Chmamber is undemocratic. That is why i created a voting option on that. I hope OWTB knows also now Pierlot McCrooke 07:58, March 6, 2010 (UTC) *::OWTB knows that there is no need for an even more complicated system. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:01, March 6, 2010 (UTC) *:::Complication in some case like these is needed to have a democratic system where everything needs to be voted. Proposals going back should be only done when most MOtc vote option . Otherwise it will be undemocratic. So you want undemocratic things? Pierlot McCrooke 08:05, March 6, 2010 (UTC) *::::Nobody cares about this "undemocratic" thing, and I believe democracy is not the best way of ruling a country, so I don't see the use of this. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:14, March 6, 2010 (UTC) *:::::But because Lovia is a Democracy Lovia should have it Pierlot McCrooke 08:25, March 6, 2010 (UTC) *::::::Apparently not. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:32, March 6, 2010 (UTC) * -- 18:43, March 8, 2010 (UTC) Abstention * ... WILL GO BACK TO FIRST CHAMBER. SO NO VOTING PLEASE :Good luck with your second chance :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:36, March 6, 2010 (UTC) ::It is so adjustments can be made. Look at First Chamber Pierlot McCrooke 08:38, March 6, 2010 (UTC) :::Isn't that undemocratic? ;) 09:14, March 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::It may be but it first needs some adjusmtnets Pierlot McCrooke 09:16, March 6, 2010 (UTC) 2010 Highway Plan (by Secretary McCandless) Preface The present situation: * There is only one highway (Highway 1) in use * Lovia being an archipelago of small islands, the construction of new highways is rather difficult * The highways are numbered, starting at one; and so far only Highway 1 is in use Highway plan The 2010 Highway Plan consists of these items: * In the United States, odd numbers generally indicate a north-south route, and even numbers mean an east-west route. We could adopt this system in Lovia as well. * In that case, the Highway 1 will be divided into smaller portions: ** The section Hurbanova-Noble City will become the new Highway 2 ** The section Noble City-Train Village will remain Highway 1, and this road will be extended both north and south ** The section Train Village-Newhaven will become the new Highway 4, and will also be extended west * A north-south oriented highway across Kings will be constructed, and be named Highway 3 * A north-south oriented highway across Asian Island will be constructed, and be named Highway 5 * In a later phase, a north-south oriented highway from the Emerald Highlands (Clave Rock and East Hills) to Hurbanova would be constructed, and be named Highway 7 Highway overview The proposed system: * Highway 1: Blue Sea shore - Train Village - Noble City - southern tip of Sylvania * Highway 2: Hurbanova - Noble City * Highway 3: northern tip of Kings - Newhaven * Highway 4: Clave Rock - Train Village - Connection Bridge - Newhaven * Highway 5: Adoha - Clymene State Airport - Sofasi * Highway 7: Clave Rock - East Hills - Hurbanova (as suggested by our esteemed colleague Mr. Ilava) Road signs File:Highway 1 new.png File:Highway 2 new.png File:Highway 3 new.png File:Highway 4 new.png File:Highway 5 new.png File:Highway 7 new.png Construction plan * Phase 1: Re-organization of Highway 1 (April 2010) * Phase 2: Construction of primary connections (April 2010 - September 2010) ** Full construction Highway 3 ** Full construction Highway 5 * Phase 3: Construction of secondary connections (October 2010 - January 2011) ** Construction Highway 1 between the Blue Sea shore and Train Village ** Construction Highway 1 between the Noble City and the southern tip of Sylvania ** Construction Highway 4 between Clave Rock and Train Village * Phase 4: Construction of the Emeralds-Hurbanova connection (December 2010 - March 2011) ** Construction Highway 7 between Clave Rock, East Hills and Hurbanova Voting This proposal will not be incorporated into any legal text: i just want the Congress to approve with my plan. Please read it well! 07:50, March 7, 2010 (UTC) PRO # 07:50, March 7, 2010 (UTC) # --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:07, March 7, 2010 (UTC) # Pierlot McCrooke 09:05, March 7, 2010 (UTC) # 15:59, March 7, 2010 (UTC) (absolutely PRO) CONTRA # ... ABSTENTION # ...